Copyrights cause photo labs to refuse printing for customers

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Copyrights cause photo labs to refuse printing for customers.

 The main  purpose for optical storage for me, is that we love to take pictures. The beauty  of todays tech, the digital camera, is that you can take as many as you wish and  only print out the...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10441-Copyrights-cause-photo-labs-to-refuse-printing-for-customers.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10441-Copyrights-cause-photo-labs-to-refuse-printing-for-customers.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

We need to just chill out on the copyright issues. This is the exact reason why I do not advise anyone to have professional pictures taken anymore. You are at the mercy of Olan Mills or whatever to reproduce that $39.95 image taken by a teenager. Just not worth it. Videographers are just as bad.


#3

Ohmy god, this just made my day! I work at the photolab in walmart and this happens everyday! Lol. We usually don’t get people that take the digital pics and edit them. Most of our problems come from the people that get their pictures done professionally somewhere, thing bring them in and use one of out Digital Print Machines to make copies by themselves. Then they come up to the counter to pay and I’m all like, “yeah… since these were obviously taken by a professional photographer, we can’t sell you these” Then I use the paper shredder that’s at the counter :slight_smile: and shred them in front of the customer. This really makes them mad. But we will get sued if we reproduce those, and I value my job. The thing is we have copyright policies posted everywhere, even on the picture maker software about our policy. Even if it isn’t copyrighted, but has the apperance of being copyrighted, or done by a professional, we don’t have to sell it to them. But people just skip right throught the notice and then they get mad. Well if they would have read the policy to begin with, they wouldn’t have printed the pictures. But nothing makes my day better than someone who starts to curse at me because I didn’t sell them their prints because I want to piss them off or something. As soon as they start to leave, I wave and tell them to have a nice day. Lol, I love it!!


#4

Don’t u think, that if this happens too often I believe Walmart printing lab may go out of business! People may be put off by this and will instead be thinking to get one of those photo printers or go else where.


#5

Judging by the poster above, he really doesn’t sound like he’s at all bothered about trying to be helpful or suggest ways they can get around the problem. And with such a stupid policy in place to begin with, places like this are just asking for problems. “I’m sorry Sir, it looks like you actually know how to use your digital camera. That picture looks really good so yeah, afraid we wont let you print it here. Feel free to come back though with some blurry shots. Have a nice day now though and come back soon.”


#6

Things are really starting to get ridiculous. How anal are the going to get about copyright laws? Here’s another thought… if the pro gave me the JPGs on CD, isn’t that like giving me the negatives?


#7

Ohmy god, this just made my day! I work at the photolab in walmart and this happens everyday! This really makes them mad. But we will get sued if we reproduce those, and I value my job. You value your minimum wage job? by the look of it u must be a senior citizen, or a teengar to value ur job at Walmart. Edit by Wesociety: Name calling removed. There is no need to flame or insult other users! Please refrain from doing this in the future.
[edited by Wesociety on 17.06.2005 20:33]


#8

Alexsch8, No because those jpegs could have been downloaded or pilfered in some way. Unfortunately, when it comes to digital pictures, there’s no way to really authenticate who owns the copyright, when it comes to the photolabs. With film cameras, it is quite easy, produce the negatives, better yet, use the negatives to have the copies made if you want the highest quality copies anyway. Leads me to ask, if I take a photo that looks exactly like one that a pro photographer took (i.e. same stream or whatever at the same time of year and it looks remarkably similar to the pro’s picture), does that mean I’m infringing his copyright? AFAIAC, if it is a photo of me, I own the copyright, if it is a nature photograph, noone should be able to copyright it. Plain and simple.


#9

Here’s an idea: refine the laws so that it is a copyright infringement to PUBLISH a copyrighted photo without compensating the photographer. Making copies for one’s photo album isn’t publishing.


#10

If any photo printer shop gave me that BS tyhe scene would be “parting of the Red Sea biblical” in there. My wife has a Canon EOS 10D. It takes VERY nice pics. She herself is an accomplished photographer. May God have mercy on any shop that spewed this rubbish to her because it would be the most uncomfortable moment of its entire existance. This crap only happens because customers allow it to happen. The shop has no proof. It DARES not continue this nonsense if it wants to stay in business. Period.


#11

“Then I use the paper shredder that’s at the counter and shred them in front of the customer.”…and you care not one whit that you add to landfill…cretin…what’s your next step up in walmart, actually being allowed to put the piccies in their envelopes…:X


#12

------- This really makes them mad. But we will get sued if we reproduce those, and I value my job. -------- Gee, I always thought you was innicent till proven guilty in this Country… You have no real proof that the picture they have are legal or not… but have some store employee decide on there own rather it legal or not… THats ridiculious…


#13

---- But nothing makes my day better than someone who starts to curse at me because I didn’t sell them their prints because I want to piss them off or something. As soon as they start to leave, I wave and tell them to have a nice day. Lol, I love it!! ------- i wouldn’t be so happy if I was you doing that, in this screwed up world, the person you PO’ed might come back with a bat or gun later…


#14

------------- No because those jpegs could have been downloaded or pilfered in some way. Unfortunately, when it comes to digital pictures, there’s no way to really authenticate who owns the copyright, ------------------- Again that saying your guilty without any proof the picture are legal or not…


#15

I don’t know anything about digital cameras, but it does strike me that public-key cryptography could be used by each camera to digitally sign the photograph. It would work like this: the camera has a private and public key pair. When the camera takes the image it also produces a hash of the digital photograph calculated by the camera’s private key. The corresponding public key can be taken along with the digitally signed file to a lab; on a CD or whatever. To prove the image originated from your camera, all you need do is produce the public key disc to authenticate ownership. I have no idea if that has already been implemented in professional cameras, but it would make sense here. TigerZai


#16

Wonderful !!! They keep advertising better and better cameras and editing software, and with digital photo labs were loosing costumers. So, they said: Hei! Come here and print your photos on “real photo paper”, get prints that can last ! Than, you see prices coming down and you decide it’s time to put your inkjet aside. You go to the shop, and they say: your photo is too good, we cann’t print it because you may be incurring in copyright violation ! Amazingly stupid !!! Lets imaging you are a professional, are you supposed to deliver the files with a copyright registration evidence? Or they just print your photos? Maybe photographers don’t know how to download files, or even they ignore such a possibility, who knows? At the end: if you are not a professional, keep it basic, and even if you know what protography is about, just pretend you don’t! If you want the gentlemen to print your photos…:d:g


#17

LOOOL @ Roj! My wife would go ballistic as well. She is the photographer in our family. HAHAHHAHAHA! :B Damn that’s a nice camera you got compared to ours! 4mp Canon S400 or sumpthin like that.


#18

Some people just need to grow up.:r There can be a LOT of reasons why someone can work at Walmart (or any other min-wage place for that matter)…can be a student, retired person, can be educationally challenged, mexican (ok that was a joke :wink: ). But the serious point is that these companies DO make the employee do that kind of things. The employee has no rights (is close to modern day slavery). Add to that the possibility that this peson has a family and you might understand why some swallow their pride and do what the boss says, at least until you get a better opportunity in life. :wink: Back on topic. This in indeed ridiculous. “it can be copyrighted”, blah blah, what if it is NOT. I guess we will now have to label images the same way the mp3’s are with name, address, tools used. I too use Photoshop to enhance images and do a little 3D rendering, my wife loves to take pics and thank GOD we havent had this problem…may be our work sucks, hehehe, but as other said, I’d be helluva pissed if they do that to us…they wont like it for sure.


#19

!!! Here’s an idea: refine the laws so that it is a copyright infringement to PUBLISH a copyrighted photo without compensating the photographer. Making copies for one’s photo album isn’t publishing. !!! YES!!! This works for me! If you are printing at Walmart, you certainly arent publishing. Forget keys and encryption and matching and all that bull. Theyre just pictures!


#20

One more thing. If they deny you the pic saying it might be copyrighted … aren’t they implicitly saying that you STOLE someones work? Aint that like the guy at the exit of the store, stopping you to check your bags thining that you might have taken something? I’ve read of lawsuits for less than that.